Pitts: Looking for meaning of 'boo'

Not “boo” as in the greeting of ghosts and goblins but, rather, “boo” as in the chorus that drowned the bigot Rick Santorum recently after he defended his opposition to gay marriage before an audience of college students in Concord, N.H. Santorum took the same header into non sequitur and illogic that gay marriage opponents often take, i.e., if we legalize this, then we must also legalize polygamy.

It is a line of “thinking” that conveniently ignores a glaring fact. Namely, that there is not and never has been a large culture of people who felt biologically driven toward polygamous behavior, much less who seek social sanction for it. Santorum raises a classic straw man argument, tries to win the debate by stoking fear of what has not and will not happen.

And as you watched him washed from the podium by that song of opprobrium (i.e., “boo”), there was to it a certain sense of last stand, last ditch, last bitter dregs of resistance before the coming of a change that now feels inevitable as the dawn. The former senator and would-be president tried to minimize the question by noting the youth of his questioners — “I’m surprised I got a gay marriage question at a college crowd,” he quipped. “Really, that’s a shock to me.” — but in so doing, he manages to simultaneously make and miss the point.

There is an absolute historical pattern to the bigotry of social conservatives. They rally using terms of moral Armageddon against the freedoms sought by some despised or condescended to Other, whether that be a woman wanting to work outside the home, a Jew seeking to join the country club or an African-American trying to get home on a city bus. Then the freedoms are won, and people — even socially conservative ones — realize the world kept spinning after all. Armageddon did not come.

Only change.

The point is that change is usually spearheaded by the young. They are the ones who are quickest and most likely to reject lame arguments built of straw and fear. So while Santorum tries to laugh off the youth of those pressing him about gay marriage, he might be well advised to ponder the deeper implications thereof.

A 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found support for marriage equality on the rise among all age groups, but noted support is highest among the young. Among those born after 1980, 53 percent approve (as opposed to 39 percent who do not).

Santorum seems to think the children will grow out of their foolishness. Actually, the truth is probably closer to what the songwriter said: “I believe the children are our future.” Consider that prominent conservative blogger Meghan McCain, who is not yet 30, dubbed Santorum’s views “dated” and “gross.”

The trend lines are clear. As children, even children of the right, now find it hard to fathom there was ever a time women could not work outside the home or Jews were banned from the country club, so will there come a day when they will marvel that once upon a time, gay people could not be married.

The future is coming and not all the frothing and spewing of people like the bigot Santorum can deter it. Or, to put that another way:

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He asked, but he didn't answer. It is a sound uttered to show contempt, scorn, or disapproval (freedictionary.com) first used in the era 1810-1820 because the crowd couldn't synchronize "The boob don't know what he's talking about." Soon thereafter came The Wave. ;-)

“Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really." ~Agnes Sligh Turnbull “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” -Margaret Thatcher

bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I am intolerant of the opinions of those who differ with mine as well. But I am not intolerant of things that people cannot change. I think Pitts needs another word here. I think there is a big difference in being intolerant of opinions, and politics and in being intolerant of things that people cannot change.

I realized early on that nobody growing up in the Texas Panhandle would choose to be gay, but there were gay people here, and I myself witnessed the torment they faced. Many moons later, medical Science has proven that sexual orientation is largely determined by the levels of testosterone, estrogen and progesterone present in the uterus during pregnancy. Our law only allows you a legal marriage with a life partner of your choice if you were lucky enough to develop in a uterus with the right hormone balance it seems.

I actually feel a certain pity for Pitts because he is forced by circumstances beyond his control to live in a world were he is constantly surrounded by racists, bigots and ignorance. But, hey, life is tough all over. LOL

Santorum was not just expressing his religious beliefs, he was using rhetoric to join two things together, in a frothy mix, that are completely unrelated. Same-sex and Polygamy or also commonly used, Bestiality. You can't compare apples and umbrellas.

He was calling him out on his flamboyant use of the classic "slippery slope."

I think he was also trying to make the point that the times are changing. And he's right, so you guys better get used to it.

You must be new to Pitts writing. Virtually all of his writing is filled with hate for whites and christians; however, this article is one of the few in which he doesn't blame all the world's problems on white folks.

I am not, i base my opinion of him solely on this article as it is all I am familiar with. But still, I try to judge a writer based on each piece of work. You don't want to begin reading with a bias already in mind. You might overlook something.

@LG Yeah, I would kinda think that's bigoted. Would you not agree? These are some of the same countries that say, if a woman gets raped, its her fault.

As a writer, Pitts often examines matters of race. I have not noted him making any racial or bigoted remarks. Just because someone invites a reader to consider matters of race, or points out bigotry, does not make that writer a bigot. If someone here can point our any racial slur or bigoted remark Pitts has made I might buy the notion that he is a bigot but I just don't see it.

In this case, the real telling point is that gay marriage is probably inevitable. Some states may hold on several more years, insisting that gays cannot love or that their union is somehow unholy. Even so, eventually, every state will allow gay marriage, even if it takes another half century. It's a matter of time.

Personally I don't believe allowing gays to marry will make any difference whatsoever in the fabric of our society.

No sojo, I don't think I went too far....I am very careful to reserve strong language like that for things I strongly believe. In my opinion, Pitts is a bitter, race baiting, partisan, hateful person. He seems unhappy and willing to assume those who don't see race issues the way he sees them as bigots. That in itself is bigotry; stereotyping if you will. If you follow my posts, I often rail against stereotypes, generalities, and bigotry from BOTH the left and the right.

My original point - Sen. Santorum expressed his opinion, that opinion is based in his religious belief. It does not matter to me what you believe, and it should not matter what I believe in terms of this discussion - my point speaks solely to the fact that BECAUSE of his religious beliefs Sen. Santorum is being called a bigot. There are people who, as a tenet of their faith, believe homosexuality is a sin and it would follow that they would believe homosexual marriage to be the same. It must be said that disapproval of certain actions and behaviours does not always equate to bigotry or hatred toward the people who take part in that behaviour. As Christians, we are instructed to love all of mankind just as God does. However, the tenets of the Christian faith prescribe certain behaviour. Those things are admittedly subject to the intrepretation and application of each believer, but each man must decide for himself. If I or you decide differently from each other, that is between us and God, not for man to condemn. In order to live in harmony, we are to each work out our own manner of obedience to scripture if we are Christians. It is not for Pitts to call a person a bigot for his beliefs. On the other hand I have the liberty to call Pitts a bigot because he is personally attacking a person or a group and showing hatred and intolerance toward that person. It may be symatics to you, but Pitts has a track record of being so hateful to those he does not agree with. Most of us here have profound disagreements each day, but as a general rule we don't hate each other; we argue but at the end of the day bear no ill will toward each other.

stillnat, get a grip; you know I don't think Pitts is okay with homosexuals being stoned....don't be deliberately obtuse. You know those on the extreme left (which is where you have to admit Pitts is), would NEVER call muslims bigoted. Shhhhhh, we have to be "tolerant" toward muslims.....shhhhhhhh

Pitts, can always take off on social conservatives but if the words "entitlement minded liberals" shows up in a conversation he avoids it like the plague and runs to the closet. I do not know what Pitt's has on the news network that he can use his poison pen to spew his radical ideas. One previous conservative politician once said that there is a number of "so called" civil rights leaders that are nothing but "power pushing poverty pimps", I wonder if that fits.

Pitt's says get use to it, check out the ratings of DWTS when the want to be a man Chas Bono was dancing with another female.

@ There are people who, as a tenet of their faith, believe homosexuality is a sin and it would follow that they would believe homosexual marriage to be the same.

It would stand to reason but that is not what he said. If you read the whole exchange, Santorum says that he has no problem with people having relationships, just a problem with them getting married. “I have no problem if people want to have relationships, but marriage provides a good to society." I know of no religion that is good with homosexual relationships as long as there is no marriage allowed. That is strictly a social conservative view.

Pitts is not talking about conservative religious beliefs, he's talking about social conservative beliefs. He didn't call Santorum a bigot based on religious beliefs.

stillnat, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think Santorum's beliefs are religious based. I may be a little off base with my understanding of this particular statement by Santorum. However, from what I have understood in the past about him, his belief is although he believes that homosexuality is wrong he feels no inclination for the government to intervene in the "relationship" but that marriage is taking it too far. I may be mis-characterizing his position; if I am I appologize.

You know, there nuances in every candidate's position. That is one reason why I hate stereotypes so much.